Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 1 votes

China destined to be no 1 worldwide influential country by 2050?


  • Please log in to reply
258 replies to this topic

#16 Shaolin

Shaolin

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • Super Moderator
  • 700 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapura
  • Interests:Three Kingdoms, Age of Fragmentation, Chinese Mythology.
  • Languages spoken:Mandarin, English, Minnanyu ( Hokkien)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Three Kingdoms

Posted 29 November 2009 - 12:26 AM

USA still has the best fundamentals of major economies. US still has most advanced technologies, best political system, rich resources compared to population size. The problem is Americans lie on these advantages and fool around too much in the last 20 or 30 years. The next 10 or 20 years will be hard to Americans, esp the lower class people, but it's also an opportunity to push forward those difficult reforms, esp in health care and education.


Hi Howard,

On the Contrary, the fundamentals of the US economy of the past 10 years is seriously flawed as it is based on consumption and stimulus. There is no real growth and that is why they have the housing bubble. The problem does not lie with the American people, it lies with the government which promise too much things which they cannot afford to deliver and hence did not allow the free market to function.

My question to you is why is this an opportunity to push reforms like healthcare when the US government is in deficit. Where will the money come from? Borrow it? Print it? or tax the rich and give it to the poor?
無為
Eternal Vigilance Is the Price of Liberty

#17 bloodmerchant

bloodmerchant

    State Undersecretary (Shangshu Lang 尚书郎)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Chinese History, Wu Chinese language, Chinese culture, Chinese linguistics, Wu Chinese culture, Southern Chinese languages
  • Languages spoken:English (American), Wu Chinese (Shanghainese)
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:American-born Han Chinese (Shanghainese/Jiangnanese)
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Language
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Biology, Linguistics, Medieval History

Posted 29 November 2009 - 12:45 AM

USA still has the best fundamentals of major economies. US still has most advanced technologies, best political system, rich resources compared to population size. The problem is Americans lie on these advantages and fool around too much in the last 20 or 30 years. The next 10 or 20 years will be hard to Americans, esp the lower class people, but it's also an opportunity to push forward those difficult reforms, esp in health care and education. China's economic fundamentals are still weak compared to most countries, but Chinese worked really hard and willing to sacrifice anything for economic growth for the last 30 years. The aging population will gradually slow down the economy and in 30 or 40 years, China will enter a long stagnation stage like Japan and Europe. America and China is like playing the teetertotter. When China goes up, America goes down. When America goes up, China goes down.


You are just horribly flawed.

The American political system is just a sham.

The American educational system is equally bad as the political system, if not worse. It could be though.

Most advanced technologies? When nearly 50% of the population believes that God literally created everything and believes that evolution is a satanic plot to undermine a 'Christian nation' as the USA?

The economic system is c**p, as the US deficit is just funded by investors from primarily East Asia. Once they don't buy any more security bonds, the economy goes kaput!
吳王夫差將伐齊,子胥曰:“不可。夫齊之與吳也,習俗不同,言語不通,我得其地不能處,得其民不得使。夫吳之與越也,接土鄰境,壤交通屬,習俗同,言語通,我得其地能處之,得其民能使之。”
─伍子胥 《知化》,《呂氏春秋》

#18 Mei Houwang

Mei Houwang

    Prime Minister (Situ/Chengxiang 司徒/丞相)

  • CHF Grand Historian Award
  • 1,933 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Art of War
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese Military History and Chinese Art of War

Posted 29 November 2009 - 06:51 PM

It will not be long before China is once more overwhelmingly dominant in the region. It would not be in the least surprising if some of the characteristics of the tributary state system once more came to shape and inform inter-state relations in the region. In other words, the rise of China could weaken and relativise the hitherto overwhelming global dominance of the European-designed Westphalian system.

The Chinese have a highly distinctive view of race: 92% of a population of 1.4bn believe they are of one race, the Han Chinese. This is in stark contrast to the other most populous nations in the world, such as India, the United States, Indonesia and Brazil, which believe themselves to be multiracial. The Chinese attitude is primarily the product of its extraordinarily long history as a civilisation state, which has led to a long history of the mixing and melding of races and engendered a powerful sense of Chinese identity.

This is reinforced by a widespread belief in polygenism, that the Chinese are a separate branch of humanity rather than sharing a common origin with the rest of us in Africa. The Chinese sense of superiority is thus rooted in biological, as well as cultural, attitudes and beliefs. One consequence is that the Chinese have little conception of difference, which is clearly manifest in their attitude towards Tibet and Xinjiang. These attitudes are age-old and are bound to influence Chinese perceptions and behaviour as a global power.


When I read to the polygenism part I just couldn't take it anymore. Where did this guy get his crazy ideas from? That's something you read from Epoch Times, it's not something you would expect from a real newspaper.

#19 SNK_1408

SNK_1408

    Chief State Secretary (Shangshu Ling 尚书令)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Busan, LA, Sydney
  • Languages spoken:English, Korean, Japanese, Farci
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:South Korean
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Asian History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Chinese, Korea, Japanese, Human evolution and migration

Posted 29 November 2009 - 07:55 PM

Pretty much history will repeat itself.
Every Asian nations is on the rise as well as India, Nigeria, Mexico etc..
역사를 보면 결국 힘있는 자가 힘없는 자를 정복하고 약탈하는 것입니다.
역사를 왜곡하는 민족은 반드시 멸망한다.
Posted Image

#20 ahxiang

ahxiang

    Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 30 November 2009 - 12:36 AM

USA still has the best fundamentals of major economies. US still has most advanced technologies, best political system, rich resources compared to population size. The problem is Americans lie on these advantages and fool around too much in the last 20 or 30 years. The next 10 or 20 years will be hard to Americans, esp the lower class people, but it's also an opportunity to push forward those difficult reforms, esp in health care and education. China's economic fundamentals are still weak compared to most countries, but Chinese worked really hard and willing to sacrifice anything for economic growth for the last 30 years. The aging population will gradually slow down the economy and in 30 or 40 years, China will enter a long stagnation stage like Japan and Europe. America and China is like playing the teetertotter. When China goes up, America goes down. When America goes up, China goes down.


Howard, you and me on this board for quite some years, and we know each other's views. I could tell you had moderated quite a bit. Look around, you will see some of the replies to you could be more China-centric than you, like from the "Fen Qing" (Angry Youth).

I was paying special attention to the income numbers after you raised that figure. Here, at http://business.time...icle6937019.ece
there is a so-called World Bank number of $3000. Note this article is even-rounded, and it points out the fallacy of the Aesop's fable, namely, the rabbit (America) did not have to nap for the turtle (China) to catch up. It further states that "Global imbalances, historically, reflect conflicted monetary policies and sometimes end up in crises, in which creditor-export giants in the global economy pay a higher price than their debtor-import opposites." This was basically called the "Immiserizing Growth", which I put on my website since day one, as early as 1998. The end result of all this would be the rip-off of the Chinese masses when China's US$-denominated assets lost its value. In my opinion, the gangs on the Wall Street are the smartest people ever on this globe, whom the "gurus" in the Bank of China, no matter Harvard-educated or Stanford-educated, are no match with.

I casually flipped through some documents I saved in the past years, and came to this article written by Steve H. Hanke, a professor of Applied at Johns Hopkins University, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, on May 9, 2005

http://www.cato.org/people/hanke.html

China Syndrome
by Steve H. Hanke and Michael Connolly

Four years ago, Mr. Hanke basically said:
The effect of a yuan revaluation -- deflation and recession -- would even be more damaging to China than trade sanctions. We estimate that a 25% yuan revaluation against the dollar would result in a deflation of at least 15%. China would be forced to relive the terrible economic conditions induced by the 1930s yuan revaluation. In 1934, the U.S. Silver Purchase Act monetized silver. This effectively revalued the yuan by 24% because China was on the silver standard. The price of the yuan against the dollar went from 33 cents at the end of 1933 to 41 cents in 1935. As Milton Friedman concluded in his classic study "Monetary Mischief": "Because silver was China's money, the rise in the price of silver had produced a major deflation, which in turn had led to severely troubled economic conditions."

How do we decipher this? Hanke was apparently someone who went all his way to make sure that the rip-off of the Chinese masses by the Wall Street was to continue. Indeed, it continued till even now. What happened with China was that the currency was not freely exchangeable or convertible for the masses [but freely suitcase-packageable for the "entrepreneurs"]; any foreign exchange gain from the export was mandatorily surrendered to the government in return for the over-printed RMB; and the over-printed RMB and the inflation company exacerbated the poverty of the millions of working Chinese masses. There was no comparable between this scenario and the "silver purchase" of the 1930s. (Bright may have more insight on this.)

As a side note, I like to point out the pitfalls laid by the experts from think-tanks or institutions, including your professors. Johns Hopkins University, wedded to the Cato Institute, is a good example of how the strategy was formulated in the United States. For its proximity to the White House, you have those "professors" doing the front-running for the US government which was of course controlled by the Wall Street, such as Goldman Sachs. Back in the 1930s, this same institution, Johns Hopkins University, produced a core group of Soviet spies, including Owen Lattimore, from the American Committee for the Settlement of Jews in Birobidzhan [in the Soviet Siberia], sabotaged the cause of the Republic of China. Similar example would be agitations at the Pomona College. In 1920s, it was the cradle for such Comintern agents as Chen han-sheng. Today, Pomona College transformed itself a bit and created the so-called "Pacific Basin Institute" - an institution which is brewing some talents who might very well do similar harm to China in the long run. As a Chinese student studying or teaching in America, it is important to check out the background of your professor, as well as the teacher of your professor, before buying what you were taught about.

I don't know how you come to this conclusion in saying "When China goes up, America goes down. When America goes up, China goes down." Obama just said US-China could have a win-win relationship and does not have to be in a zero-sum game. You also seems to believe that the United States is on a down-sloping path. True that America had outsourced almost everything, not necessarily manufacturing or IT. (Check here for the outsourcing of medical treatment in Thailand, http://www.dailyfina...ace-medical-to/ ) However, the entrepreneurs spirit, which was secured by the American political system, guarantees that the United States would always one step [if not ten years as the Times article suggested] ahead of the others. Also true that the American education institutions are staffed by immigrant-background professors. However, you need to know that majority of those converts pledged allegiance and loyalty to the United States when they obtained citizenship, and the only reason that they changed citizenship to be an American is because of the political system of the United States - which no matter how corrupt in the power structure as evidenced by the links between the White House and the Wall Street, did not infringe on the basic human rights of individuals.
Posted Image

#21 Howard Fu

Howard Fu

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Economics/Management

Posted 30 November 2009 - 08:40 AM

Hi Howard,

On the Contrary, the fundamentals of the US economy of the past 10 years is seriously flawed as it is based on consumption and stimulus. There is no real growth and that is why they have the housing bubble. The problem does not lie with the American people, it lies with the government which promise too much things which they cannot afford to deliver and hence did not allow the free market to function.

My question to you is why is this an opportunity to push reforms like healthcare when the US government is in deficit. Where will the money come from? Borrow it? Print it? or tax the rich and give it to the poor?

It depends on how you define fundamentals. I mean US economy will see a very bad contraction in the next decade or two, but after the debt problem is cleared, US economy will rebound fast because all the necessary conditions for economic growth is still there. The process will be difficult and dangerous, esp for the lower class people, because they have less means to adapt.

Health care alone will cause more than $30 trillion deficit in the future, which is almost three times of total foreign debt. Health care reform is a must if US government want to solve the deficit problem. Neither borrow, print or tax will work. Reform is the only way out. But of course, nothing can guarantee if these reform will be successful. A negative example would be Argentina. Argentina is like US in many ways, a democratic regime, low population pressure, rich resources. In fact, Argentia was a richer country than the US at the beginning of 20th century.

The merit of democracy is it reflects the will of majority people but what if the majority of the people want things not so good in the long run? Plato believed oligarchy, democracy, tyranny went round and round in cycle.

"The main objective of oligarchy, for the sake of which it was established, was, I think we agreed, wealth.'
'Yes.'
'And its fall was due to the excessive desire for wealth, which led to the neglect of all other considerations for the sake of making money.'
'True.'
'Then does not democracy set itself an objective, and is not excessive desire for this its downfall?'
'And what is this objective?'
'Liberty.'

You don't have to agree with Plato, but I think he had a point about no regime is perfect. All systems need constant recheck and periodical overhaul.

Howard, you and me on this board for quite some years, and we know each other's views. I could tell you had moderated quite a bit. Look around, you will see some of the replies to you could be more China-centric than you, like from the "Fen Qing" (Angry Youth).

Sorry, I don't exactly know your views, but mine is certainly not 'position centric'. I'd rather think of myself as more 'truth centric'.
Please come to visit my new blog about Chinese and American schools and twitter and leave comments!

#22 pinpin

pinpin

    Prefect (Taishou 太守)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:singapore
  • Interests:anthropology, chinese history
  • Ethnic Groups or Race:chinese-henghua/hokkien
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Ethnicities,Peoples
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 30 November 2009 - 10:44 AM

eventually, yes it will. made in china is seen every where now. in fact every nation is sitting up straight when china is mentioned.

#23 krishra

krishra

    Provincial Governor (Cishi 刺史)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 30 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 03 December 2009 - 11:35 AM

As this is a history forum, perhaps American foreign policies and their effects around the world since world war 2 should be examined to understand the hype about China's rise. The name of the game is divide and profit, and America is very good at it. A very simplified alegory--That movie 'The Village' the threat of the beast beyond the boundry keeps the villagers in line(the villagers being countries around china), the council of elders (USA) giving the impression that they personally are powerless, but if all the villagers stick together... I think people who keep enforcing this China world power concept are playing into their hands because the idea of a Chinese world power to most people is deeply disturbing, an unknown boogeyman who will limit freedoms, enforce on child policies etc etc...ideas which various media around the world encourage as often as they can.

Another point I would make is that China produces alot of products for US, Europe etc--What exactly does China get in return? After all most of the products which chinese themselves are buying are made again, within china. For those who say china is making a profit, a profit to purchase what? The money is banked, lent back to Americans so they can purchase stuff which chinese made with chinese savings??? Do you think the chinese governemnt is crazy or do you understand that the alternative for china if she refuses to lend money to America would result in the inability to purchase energy supplies, specifically coal. What would happen if south korea was loaned coal and china made to pay for it in advance? Or replace South korea with Japan or india etc, could china remain competetive under those conditions?

The US is a superpower because it projects reluctance, weakness, indecision, and in this way forces everybody who would like the world to remain as it is into a coalition, a coatiltion which finds itself doing all it can to uplift America, for their own security. Its beautiful.
  • animerlot likes this

#24 Freddy1

Freddy1

    Grand Mentor (Taishi 太师)

  • CHF Rookie Member
  • 457 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Religion
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Cultural Anthropology

Posted 04 December 2009 - 08:38 PM

Most advanced technologies? When nearly 50% of the population believes that God literally created everything and believes that evolution is a satanic plot to undermine a 'Christian nation' as the USA?

I'm not an American or anything.

(respectfully)
I wouldnt totally dismiss technology coming from America.
They have many technologies that are way ahead compare to other nations.
Such as in:
-Semi conductor technology
-microchip technology (eg 3D microchip, plastic microchip, etc)
-radar technology
-pharmaceutical industry
-plastic industry
-medical sciences
-satellite technology
etc


I think competition would be good. I personally would like to see U.S. pharmaceutical industry & medical sciences have more competition. In the end it would benefit us greatly. Win Win situation.

Edited by Freddy1, 04 December 2009 - 08:39 PM.


#25 ahxiang

ahxiang

    Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 05 December 2009 - 01:02 AM

I'm not an American or anything.

(respectfully)
I wouldnt totally dismiss technology coming from America.
They have many technologies that are way ahead compare to other nations.
Such as in:
-Semi conductor technology
-microchip technology (eg 3D microchip, plastic microchip, etc)
-radar technology
-pharmaceutical industry
-plastic industry
-medical sciences
-satellite technology
etc


I think competition would be good. I personally would like to see U.S. pharmaceutical industry & medical sciences have more competition. In the end it would benefit us greatly. Win Win situation.


For Freddy, I want to remind you that religion is a source of strength in America, just as the internet being so as Obama said. In small town America, you will see a church every one or three blocks. The Sat/Sun congregagtions at those churches, which are just like the gatherings of clans in ancient Chinese villages, bond the [American] people together. The elites and politicians in the American government, including the founders, realized the utility of religion as a source of strength. Do not underestimate it. In contrast, China, a country void of beliefs, is still a heap of sand.

For Krishra, I found you a good thinker. The current system evolved into this status over the whole century. In 1920s, the London bankers and the Wall Street accomplices worked together to destroy America by inflating up the asset price, similar to the bubble that imploded in 2007-2008, which led to the great depression.

As to your perplexity with China's behavior, I will say that you have to know the nature of the regime first. This regime deemed the control of power as paramount. Hence it will do whatever is necessary to keep a lid over the public, and to maintain peace and stability, the regime needs to maintain the level of under-employment to have the billion people fed. The regime has to strike a balance here: over-feeding the billion people would lead to the restlessness as the people would find other things to pursue; whereas under-feeding would lead to the unrest due to resentment from the people. The "export" behavior, which had continued for 30 years, largely served the purpose of the regime. If it does not break, do not fix it. That must be the motto. What happened over the dozens of years would be this strange fact: the real price of clothes and toys sold in China is much higher than that sold in America. You may call it by "dumping" in the terms of the international trade, for example, tires. By directly and indirectly [through multinational corporations] exploiting its own people, the regime ripped off its billion people to accumulate the huge US dollars which are mandatorily surrendered to the government in exchange for the over-printed RMB. You could just apply this behavior to what some American said 150 years ago as to his expectation to make a profit by selling each Chinese [in then Manchu China] one hat. When you rip one Chinese one RMB, you get equivalent 1 billion RMB collectively. Over the past years, there had been lots of pressure on the regime to adjust the currency. Still the regime refuses to do it.

Quite a paradox, I guess. You could easily do some tricks by refunding each Chinese citizen some long due sweat money, as the US government repeatedly did, i.e., refunding $600 per person, $1200 per couple, plus $600 per kid. Why nobody in Peking would not do that to kindle the domestic consumption? Why can't they build up the university campuses, as Americans did, for increasing employment? Short-sighted? Maybe. Maybe not. When I said maybe not, I was thinking in the line that someone must have schemed to keep it one way or the other. When people talked about how Mao launched the cultural revolution to purge China of the intellectual elites, nobody could have linked up the Cambridge Spy from the British Shell with the agitators who acted as Mao's accomplice in pushing through the cultural revolution. Believe me, some powerful hands are at work to steer China into running the current path.
Posted Image

#26 ahxiang

ahxiang

    Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 11:54 PM

As this is a history forum, perhaps American foreign policies and their effects around the world since world war 2 should be examined to understand the hype about China's rise. The name of the game is divide and profit, and America is very good at it. A very simplified alegory--That movie 'The Village' the threat of the beast beyond the boundry keeps the villagers in line(the villagers being countries around china), the council of elders (USA) giving the impression that they personally are powerless, but if all the villagers stick together... I think people who keep enforcing this China world power concept are playing into their hands because the idea of a Chinese world power to most people is deeply disturbing, an unknown boogeyman who will limit freedoms, enforce on child policies etc etc...ideas which various media around the world encourage as often as they can.

Another point I would make is that China produces alot of products for US, Europe etc--What exactly does China get in return? After all most of the products which chinese themselves are buying are made again, within china. For those who say china is making a profit, a profit to purchase what? The money is banked, lent back to Americans so they can purchase stuff which chinese made with chinese savings??? Do you think the chinese governemnt is crazy or do you understand that the alternative for china if she refuses to lend money to America would result in the inability to purchase energy supplies, specifically coal. What would happen if south korea was loaned coal and china made to pay for it in advance? Or replace South korea with Japan or india etc, could china remain competetive under those conditions?

The US is a superpower because it projects reluctance, weakness, indecision, and in this way forces everybody who would like the world to remain as it is into a coalition, a coatiltion which finds itself doing all it can to uplift America, for their own security. Its beautiful.


We don't want this important thread to be bumped off.

http://www.rollingst...g_sellout/print
has a fantastic article that might answer some of the questions that krishra raised.

We just need to see how Obama deals with NAFTA.

QUOTE: As director of the NEC, meanwhile, Obama installed economic czar Larry Summers, who had served as Rubin's protégé at Treasury. Just below Summers is Jason Furman, who worked for Rubin in the Clinton White House and was one of the first directors of Rubin's Hamilton Project. The appointment of Furman — a persistent advocate of free-trade agreements like NAFTA and the author of droolingly pro-globalization reports with titles like "Walmart: A Progressive Success Story" — provided one of the first clues that Obama had only been posturing when he promised crowds of struggling Midwesterners during the campaign that he would renegotiate NAFTA, which facilitated the flight of blue-collar jobs to other countries. "NAFTA's shortcomings were evident when signed, and we must now amend the agreement to fix them," Obama declared. A few months after hiring Furman to help shape its economic policy, however, the White House quietly quashed any talk of renegotiating the trade deal. "The president has said we will look at all of our options, but I think they can be addressed without having to reopen the agreement," U.S. Trade Representative Ronald Kirk told reporters in a little-publicized conference call last April.

QUOTE: The announcement was not so surprising, given who Obama hired to serve alongside Furman at the NEC: management consultant Diana Farrell, who worked under Rubin at Goldman Sachs. In 2003, Farrell was the author of an infamous paper in which she argued that sending American jobs overseas might be "as beneficial to the U.S. as to the destination country, probably more so."

Note that "IBM India" recently raised pay for the Indian locals by as much as 50% above the rest of outsourced IT companies, threatening the rest of the pack with no other choice but to raise the pay for their ethnic-Indian workers in India. Whereas, in China, Walmart, touted by Jason Furman as the Progressive Success Story, still ripped off the Chinese child labor today.

Is it enough to explain the paradox?
Posted Image

#27 ahxiang

ahxiang

    Grand Marshal (Da Sima/Taiwei 大司马/太尉)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 1,449 posts

Posted 20 December 2009 - 01:40 AM

Note that "IBM India" recently raised pay for the Indian locals by as much as 50% above the rest of outsourced IT companies, threatening the rest of the pack with no other choice but to raise the pay for their ethnic-Indian workers in India. Whereas, in China, Walmart, touted by Jason Furman as the Progressive Success Story, still ripped off the Chinese child labor today.

Is it enough to explain the paradox?



http://www.businessi...ve-to-india-ibm

IBM To North American Employees: To Keep Your Job, Move To India (IBM)

Folks, this is no joke. I have information that IBM India paid 50-60% more salary than any other American companies operating in India. What IBM India did was a revolution that would swept across the corporate America.

Unfortunately, "Walmart China," in collusion with the Chinese compradores, would continue to screw China and the CHinese people. Before we Chinese are to take comfort in China's destiny to become the No. 1 country by 2050, please spend some time to reflect on the contrast between IBM India and Walmart China. And do not let this important theme buried.
Posted Image

#28 bayonet

bayonet

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • Super Moderator
  • 826 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Qing, ROC & PRC History, Chinese Architecture

Posted 29 December 2009 - 06:03 AM

China now is a highly currupted country and social justice has already been severely sabotaged. I can't imagine this country can be the world No 1 in the following 40 yrs. It might be the biggest economy due to its sheer size and population. Historically speaking, China has always been the biggest in economy. Certainly, due to the size, it has influence. However, how they can maximize their influnece is questioned. They seem not be capable to produce enough talent pool...Well, I am not saying Chinese are not smart, I am saying as a regime of heavy nepotism, true talents won't be valued.

The thing really thwarts before the country is the authoritarian governance and no accountabilitiy to the people. This is the soil for curruption and bureaucracy. And this is going to devour the country's resource and impair its global almighty---as most resource would be poured in to maintain the authoriatarian rule. The government will always be ready to compromise with other powers to ensure there won't be domestic challenges. Again, this is an experience from the Chinese history.

Will there be a major reform then? NO, at least in ten years. There won't be a reform untill the country is in plight. There won't be a thorough one untill the regime faces tough challenge.



Chinese civilization is a unique one. (every civilization is) It is the longest surviving civilization (due to some luck). But it has severe problems. One is that the people care little of their social responsibilities. This is always condemned in China as "peasant mentality". By a modern country standard, they also have little awareness of their rights and hardly know the importance of rule of law. Chinese also have little faith, for them life is like a fulfillment. To fulfill all the things that their father generation expect them to do. a bit boring in my view. A good thing is that Chinese have strong family bond. And the Chinese civilization, from its nature, is not very closed.

#29 Yizheng

Yizheng

    State Undersecretary (Shangshu Lang 尚书郎)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 591 posts
  • Location:Moscow
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    none

Posted 29 December 2009 - 11:35 AM

The thing really thwarts before the country is the authoritarian governance and no accountabilitiy to the people. This is the soil for curruption and bureaucracy. And this is going to devour the country's resource and impair its global almighty---as most resource would be poured in to maintain the authoriatarian rule. The government will always be ready to compromise with other powers to ensure there won't be domestic challenges. Again, this is an experience from the Chinese history.

Will there be a major reform then? NO, at least in ten years. There won't be a reform untill the country is in plight. There won't be a thorough one untill the regime faces tough challenge.

I agree with this assessment. China already has substantial economic weight and is a regional military power, as well as being one of the big political players in the world. But it is hard to see that it can make a real progress further without change at home first, otherwise it simply does not have the base on which to develop the whole foundation needed for securing such far-reaching influence in the world. I too think the system of government is the big obstacle in this.
Authoritarian regimes always seem to be the more stable option, but in fact, they contain the seeds of future instability by their very nature of suppressing challenges and opposition to their power, and thus are always doomed to collapse at some point. Whereas democratic regimes might have all sorts of ups and downs, but are actually more stable in the long-term, not to mention that they cultivate more responsible and initiative-taking citizens. And the sad thing is that real reforms usually only ever come when the situation turns so bad that people are simply forced to act.

My hope is the same for China and for Russia, since there are quite a few similarities in the problems they face. That is, I hope that when the change does come it will be not from one extreme to another, not some kind of revolution. China has many things that could all help to give it influence and make it stronger, but the ultimate beneficiaries of this development and strength have to be first and foremost the Chinese people themselves.

#30 Howard Fu

Howard Fu

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • Master Scholar (Juren)
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Economics/Management

Posted 30 December 2009 - 12:25 AM

I agree PRC government is essentially a traditional Chinese dynasty. It was an advanced system then but by the time of Ming it already became dysfunctional. I think at the root of the problem. It's still a problem of management complexity. The problems China faced now, like rampant corruption, inequality, nepotism, are so like those in history. They were never solved under this kind of system. I can't see how can PRC solve them now. (Was this the most important reason many aspects of social development in China stagnated after Ming?)

I think the modern parliamentary democracy is a kind of political system associated with a certain level of economic development. The Chinese economy is reaching a point economic development can not continue without political reform. The current model of growth has created a great distortion within China and is one of the important reasons of the global imbalance. The democratic reform in Taiwan and South Korea all happened when GDP per captia was around $10,000, but the authoritarian bureaucracy was much more deep rooted in China. It's difficult to say what's gonna happen.

Edited by Howard Fu, 30 December 2009 - 01:56 AM.

Please come to visit my new blog about Chinese and American schools and twitter and leave comments!




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users